SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ahhaha who wrote (17254)6/27/2010 5:12:00 AM
From: frankw1900Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
Perhaps you caught this but I missed it.

This is something I didn't know. Apparently the Dutch offered help when the BP well blew. They have an oil spill clean up fleet and obviously, lots of experience in engineering dykes quickly. Other countries offered help as well.

They were turned down flat, and yes, BP wanted to get them involved.

Finally US took up the foreign offers but not in a very sensible way and a lot of unnecessary damage has been done.

This is a story in today's National Post:

Avertible catastrophe

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post · Saturday, Jun. 26, 2010

Some are attuned to the possibility of looming catastrophe and know how to head it off. Others are unprepared for risk and even unable to get their priorities straight when risk turns to reality.

The Dutch fall into the first group. Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20, the Netherlands offered the U.S. government ships equipped to handle a major spill, one much larger than the BP spill that then appeared to be underway. "Our system can handle 400 cubic metres per hour," Weird Koops, the chairman of Spill Response Group Holland, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide, giving each Dutch ship more cleanup capacity than all the ships that the U.S. was then employing in the Gulf to combat the spill.

To protect against the possibility that its equipment wouldn't capture all the oil gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch also offered to prepare for the U.S. a contingency plan to protect Louisiana's marshlands with sand barriers. One Dutch research institute specializing in deltas, coastal areas and rivers, in fact, developed a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

The Dutch know how to handle maritime emergencies. In the event of an oil spill, The Netherlands government, which owns its own ships and high-tech skimmers, gives an oil company 12 hours to demonstrate it has the spill in hand. If the company shows signs of unpreparedness, the government dispatches its own ships at the oil company's expense. "If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands," says Geert Visser, the Dutch consul general in Houston.

In sharp contrast to Dutch preparedness before the fact and the Dutch instinct to dive into action once an emergency becomes apparent, witness the American reaction to the Dutch offer of help. The U.S. government responded with "Thanks but no thanks," remarked Visser, despite BP's desire to bring in the Dutch equipment and despite the no-lose nature of the Dutch offer --the Dutch government offered the use of its equipment at no charge. Even after the U.S. refused, the Dutch kept their vessels on standby, hoping the Americans would come round. By May 5, the U.S. had not come round. To the contrary, the U.S. had also turned down offers of help from 12 other governments, most of them with superior expertise and equipment --unlike the U.S., Europe has robust fleets of Oil Spill Response Vessels that sail circles around their make-shift U.S. counterparts.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, "We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water--the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that." In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls "crazy."

The Americans, overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of the BP spill, finally relented and took the Dutch up on their offer -- but only partly. Because the U.S. didn't want Dutch ships working the Gulf, the U.S. airlifted the Dutch equipment to the Gulf and then retrofitted it to U.S. vessels. And rather than have experienced Dutch crews immediately operate the oil-skimming equipment, to appease labour unions the U.S. postponed the clean-up operation to allow U.S. crews to be trained.

A catastrophe that could have been averted is now playing out. With oil increasingly reaching the Gulf coast, the emergency construction of sand berns to minimize the damage is imperative. Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. "Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands," he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focussed on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

Then again, perhaps he should not be all that perplexed at the American tolerance for turning an accident into a catastrophe. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker accident occurred off the coast of Alaska in 1989, a Dutch team with clean-up equipment flew in to Anchorage airport to offer their help. To their amazement, they were rebuffed and told to go home with their equipment. The Exxon Valdez became the biggest oil spill disaster in U.S. history--until the BP Gulf spill.

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.



To: ahhaha who wrote (17254)6/27/2010 6:58:36 AM
From: TrumptownRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
'alarmed'...hardley, just a simple statement...

we're dumping excessive amounts of toxic chemicals...period

beforeitsnews.com

but, I suppose in your world Love Canal was no big deal either...

as for the rest or your diatribe, we'll just leave that to you and your thread dwellers...



To: ahhaha who wrote (17254)6/27/2010 8:23:57 AM
From: dvdw©Respond to of 24758
 
This post captures the Control you; part of the malfeasance;
From: roguedolphin 6/27/2010 5:29:57 AM
1 Recommendation of 64479

Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme
Mortgage giant set to collect millions marketing homeowners' energy savings

June 25, 2010 By Jerome R. Corsi
wnd.com

With the Obama administration pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, former Clinton and Obama adviser Franklin Raines has positioned the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae to make millions by selling carbon credits from American homes.

Two patents applied for by Raines as one of several "co-inventors" – Nos. 6904336 and 7133750 – create a "method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity." The patents are identically titled "System and Method for Residential Emissions Trading."

Be the first to see the full documentation of how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations, in "Climategate"

The idea appears to be for Fannie Mae to create "Collateralized Carbon Obligations," or CCOs, by utilizing a methodology similar to its system for combining individual home loans into Collateralized Loan Obligations, or CLOs.

The patents give Fannie Mae the methods for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can be packaged and sold to carbon polluters as credits on a carbon exchange.

Instead of selling the Collateralized Loan Obligations to institutional investors, including financial institutions and banks, the energy savings in thousands of U.S. homes would be packaged by Fannie Mae and sold as Collateralized Carbon Obligations on a carbon exchange, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange. The buyers would be carbon emitters who emit so much carbon dioxide they are required to buy carbon offset credits.

Fannie Mae owns patents

WND reported Raines and Fannie Mae have both stated in e-mails that Raines has no ownership of the two carbon emission patents he filed as "inventor" while he was CEO of the government-sponsored mortgage giant.

"Mr. Raines has no continuing interest in any patent for residential carbon emissions," Corrine Russell, a spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Financing Agency, the new regulatory agency now overseeing Fannie Mae, concurred in an e-mail to WND.

By obtaining the patents, Fannie Mae has effectively blocked others, including Wall Street investment banks, from utilizing the methodology without compensating Fannie Mae, explained Joshua D. Isenberg, a patent and trademark attorney in Fremont, Calif., who is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

"In effect, Fannie Mae has cornered the market for aggregating carbon credits from U.S. homes," said Isenberg in telephone interview with WND. "A patent typically becomes a business tool that excludes others, including big players, from asserting their right to the invention."

Isenberg explained that obtaining the patents on household carbon emissions effectively puts Fannie Mae into the position of "Let's make a deal."

Rights to energy savings in your home?

How would Fannie Mae obtain the carbon credits from American homes?

The patents appear to explain that Fannie Mae will identify and measure energy savings in residential households that can be "quantified as an emissions reduction" and "aggregated into a tradable commodity."

The patents authorize Fannie Mae to create either "a system" or "a computer-implemented method" for converting household energy savings into tradable credits.

The patents discuss "replacing older appliances with more energy efficient appliances; upgrading hot water heating systems; upgrading heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems; modifying lightening; fuel switching and renovating the entire home."

The patents further explain that appliance upgrades "may include, but are not limited to: refrigerators; stoves and ovens; clothes washers and dryers; and dishwaters."

Improving hot water heating systems for showers, baths and other household uses "may result in substantial energy savings," the patent explains, noting "an oil-fired boiler might be replaced with a natural gas hot water heating systems."

The patents also recommend that homeowners participating in the program should consider "installing insulating insulation in attics and exterior walls; installing more efficient windows; and reducing infiltration."

Once Fannie Mae establishes an energy baseline on a home, the patents describe a methodology in which regulators can measure on-going energy use through the installation of new meters and by regulators visiting homes as part of Fannie Mae-specified field monitoring.

Nowhere in the patents is there any discussion of compensating homeowners for making the energy improvements or for sharing with homeowners any of the revenue Fannie Mae might derive from packaging their energy savings as carbon credits to be sold on a carbon exchange to carbon polluters.

Nor do the patents discuss financial or legal repercussions Fannie Mae might take on homeowners who "default" on energy savings that it identified in their homes, quantified and packaged into tradable carbon credit commodities.

In addition to Fannie Mae, the two patents are also assigned to Cantor CO2e, a spin-off subsidiary of Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald that reflects the participation of Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Carlton Bartels as a "co-inventor" in the original development of the household carbon emissions patent idea.

After Carlton Bartels was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack, his wife, Jane Bartels, took legal ownership of his property interests in the patents.

Cantor CO2e is currently listed as an "offset aggregator" on the Chicago Climate Exchange, suggesting the company could cooperate with Fannie Mae utilizing the Franklin Raines-filed patents to combine household energy credits to be sold as tradable carbon-credit commodities on the CCX.

Robert Hubbell, managing director of global communications and marketing for Cantor Fitzgerald, told WND the Patent Office lists both Fannie Mae and CantorCO2 as owners.

He said Cantor has no involvement with Raines, and his company has no working relationship with Fannie Mae to implement or use the patents.

A letter sent May 25 by Fannie Mae general counsel Alfred M. Pollard to Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, explains that Fannie Mae is not using the first patent nor has it earned any revenue on it.

In her e-mail to WND, Corinne Russell of the FHFA claimed Fannie Mae sent a similar letter to Issa and Chaffetz in June, denying Fannie Mae had used or was earning any revenue on the second patent.

Russell did not respond to WND's questions asking whether FHFA or Fannie Mae would deny categorically that Fannie Mae would ever implement the household carbon emissions programs specified in the patents, or whether Fannie Mae would consider assigning the household carbon emission patent rights to another government agency for implementation.

Russell also did not respond to WND inquiries about the percentage of ownership interest in the two patents that was assigned to Cantor CO2e or to a request to define the working relationship, if any, between Fannie Mae and CO2e.